everything living and inanimate rigid from the frost (this part I have), the other things more terrible to seeing than to speaking (this part I don't get)

It seems like the supines visu and dictu are literally translated "terrible to seeing than to speaking" but that doesn't make sense in English. Is it appropriate to translate the supine as passive and say "more terrible to being seen than to being spoken of"

Thanks.

EDIT: I think I just got it. Neither are supines and it says "more terrible in sight than in speech" Please correct me if I'm wrong!

i think you right that they are supines. This is a very common use of the supine. The problem is the somewhat uncomfortable english. You just need to be a bit more flexible in your wording and try to be slightly less literal in the translation.

either my latin understanding is failing me, or is not what i would like it to be, or there is an error in the line you have posted. I can't seem to figure out what agmen in doing there. Are you sure this is correctly spelt? (or is it 'spelled'?) Something like 'in agmine' would make more sense to me...

otherwise, the sentence seems to say:To those scaling the first cliffs appeared the men of the mountains who were occupying the overhanging hills.

mind that imminentes and insidentes can both be either nominative or accusative, and each can grammatically accompany both tumulos and montani.

either my latin understanding is failing me, or is not what i would like it to be, or there is an error in the line you have posted. I can't seem to figure out what agmen in doing there. Are you sure this is correctly spelt? (or is it 'spelled'?) Something like 'in agmine' would make more sense to me...

otherwise, the sentence seems to say:To those scaling the first cliffs appeared the men of the mountains who were occupying the overhanging hills.

mind that imminentes and insidentes can both be either nominative or accusative, and each can grammatically accompany both tumulos and montani.

Agmen is the direct object of erigentibus, as his notes say. Erigere agmen is a common idiom that means more or less "march upwards". Agmen is the technical term for an advancing column of soldiers.

The only way you can know which participle goes with which noun is by knowing that one of them, insidentes "sitting upon/occupying", can take a direct object, while the other, imminentes "overhanging", is intransitive*, and that likewise the main verb apparuerunt is intransitive. A Roman would know all this by instinct upon reading these words, whereas we are at a considerable disadvantage until we've fully committed these kinds of grammatical minutiae to memory (which could take a lifetime). Anyway, by knowing that insidentes is the only verb or verbal in the sentence that can take a direct object, it becomes obvious from the context that insidentes agrees with the subject and that imminentes must agree with the direct object of insidentes, and thus it's the mountaineers who are occupying the overhanging hills. Erigentibus seems primarily to be a dative of respect with the main verb appareo, i.e. "it became evident/visible to those marching". It's possible that it could also, secondarily, be a dative indirect object of imminentes, as it makes sense that the hills occupied by the mountaineers would also overhang the army. Word order seems to indicate that the former is the more obvious and direct grammatical relation, though.

*I think in the special context that immineo means "to threaten" it can uncharacteristically act as a transitive verb, but in such case the direct object is an internal accusative that always refers to an expression of threat or else some sort of action that constitutes a threat. Context rules that out, here. I also think it's mostly a poetic construction, but I'm not absolutely certain of that.

Imber Ranae wrote:Erigentibus seems primarily to be a dative of respect with the main verb appareo, i.e. "it became evident/visible to those marching". It's possible that it could also, secondarily, be a dative indirect object of imminentes, as it makes sense that the hills occupied by the mountaineers would also overhang the army.

Is is not just an ablative absolute as a temporal clause (A&G, §420, or §419c adverbially without substantive, even): "As (or 'while' or 'just as' or 'when') they were moving the column up onto the immediate/nearest slopes..."?Nonnè est tantummodò ablativum absolutum ut clausula temporalis?

Imber Ranae wrote:Agmen is the direct object of erigentibus, as his notes say. Erigere agmen is a common idiom that means more or less "march upwards". Agmen is the technical term for an advancing column of soldiers.

thanks Imber! i was not familiar with this idiom. I'm still learning more and more each day.

He is most certainly capable of error, as are the transcribers of his works. Yet I don't think we need necessarily resort to that conclusion in this case.

hehe no i didn't mean to seem quite so serious when i said that.

Adrianus wrote:Is is not just an ablative absolute as a temporal clause (A&G, §420, or §419c adverbially without substantive, even): "As (or 'while' or 'just as' or 'when') they were moving the column up onto the immediate/nearest slopes..."?

I see your point, but i'm inclined to agree with Imber that its primary function is a dative of respect with apparuerunt.[/quote]

adrianus wrote:Is is not just an ablative absolute as a temporal clause (A&G, §420, or §419c adverbially without substantive, even): "As (or 'while' or 'just as' or 'when') they were moving the column up onto the immediate/nearest slopes..."?Nonnè est tantummodò ablativum absolutum ut clausula temporalis?

It could be, as it's technically ambiguous. You are right, however, to reprove me for not mentioning the possibility. Yet I don't see why that should be the only interpretation, let alone the better one. And I do believe the idea is the same either way. Going by immediate context, there's no one else for the mountaineers to appear to than to Hannibal and his army, so even assuming an ablative absolute it would be understood implicitly to whom they're appearing. On the other hand, dative with apparere is quite common, and the temporal relation expressed by the participle is the same whether it's an ablative absolute or a simple dative construction: "While they were moving the column up onto the immediate/nearest slopes, the mountain men became visible..." vs. "The mountain men became visible to them while they were moving the column...[etc.].